Wikipedia
הרב שריאל רוזנברג (נולד ב-16 בינואר 1951) הוא ראש בית הדין של הרב נסים קרליץ ורב שכונת "רמת דוד" בבני ברק. משמש במקביל כאב בית דין בבית הדין הישר והטוב בירושלים.
Postscript to the Baltimore Beis Din letter of Tammuz
Yehoshua
A translation:
It is a clear matter that with regard to any woman who has been established as married, one cannot remove her status as a married woman without the clear ruling of an authorized beis Din, and no person in the world is relied upon to say that she may get married. Even a sole dayan is not relied upon. [She cannot marry] unless she has in her hand an court writ that is written and signed by the Beis Din as the halakha requires. I have been seized will trembling to hear that there are those who desire to permit a married woman to [marry one from] the world based on oral reports alone, that one person heard from another that she is permitted. This matter is the destruction of the religion and a breach of all the walls of holiness and purity in the vineyard of the Jewish people, that any person does as he sees fit. I support the hands of the Beis din and ge’onim who are standing firm to stop this breach. This should not be for us as a stumbling block, God forbid. Who is like them, who understand the matter clearly, as they had hearings with the two parties.
This was his postscript to the Tammuz letter of the Baltimore Beis Din.
ReplyDeleteA translation:
ReplyDeleteIt is a clear matter that with regard to any woman who has been established as married, one cannot remove her status as a married woman without the clear ruling of an authorized beis Din, and no person in the world is relied upon to say that she may get married. Even a sole dayan is not relied upon. [She cannot marry] unless she has in her hand an court writ that is written and signed by the Beis Din as the halakha requires. I have been seized will trembling to hear that there are those who desire to permit a married woman to [marry one from] the world based on oral reports alone, that one person heard from another that she is permitted. This matter is the destruction of the religion and a breach of all the walls of holiness and purity in the vineyard of the Jewish people, that any person does as he sees fit. I support the hands of the Beis din and ge’onim who are standing firm to stop this breach. This should not be for us as a stumbling block, God forbid. Who is like them, who understand the matter clearly, as they had hearings with the two parties.
Note: It seems to me that the final lines are a reference to the Baltimore Beis Din.
Rav Rosenberg is clear that that a woman who has a
ReplyDeletestanding as married to a man cannot be permitted to marry without a get from
her husband unless a bais din authorization.
kishkeyum says
“I'm starting to feel very sorry for Susan.” I’m starting to feel sorry for the
rabbis that support Tamar’s remarriage.
This is true chillul Hashem. This is
not the Torah way to permit Tamar to remarry without a ruling in a bait din.
All the lies of angry women is not really chillul
hashem. I love quoting:
A passerby who gets embroiled
in someone else’s quarrel Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears. Like a
madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows, Is one who cheats his fellow and
says, “I was only joking” (Proverbs 26:17-19).
A man and his wife fighting are
like 2 dogs fighting. Outsiders should
stay away. This is none of their
business. The man must be willing to give his wife a get, for the get to have
any validity. Without a get, with the
man alive and well and free, the woman cannot remarry.
Rav Sariel is a rising figure in the Hareidi world and will likely be one of the Gedolei HADor in the next decades. So his words should be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteHe cites no sources whatsoever, and all halachick auothroties I spoke to disagree with him, apparently he thinks he is a new chazon ish
ReplyDeletethanks for pointing this out - added this to post
ReplyDeletethanks for the translation - added it to the post
ReplyDeleteI'd love to hear the sources of the halachick authorities you spoke to, Nathan.
ReplyDeletePoskin consider להפקיע אשה מבעלה on the same level as דיני נפשות which requires דרישה וחקירה and certainly Bais din. It also boggles the mind to be able to פסל a person שלא בפניו. This from שו"ת רמ"א סי"ב.
טעם
הראשון, שהוגבו שלא כדין שלא בפניה. ואיתא בתשובת הרא"ש כלל מו סימן א,
וז"ל: תחלה אני כותב, שלא כהוגן עשו שקבלו העדות שלא בפני האשה ושלא בפני
בעלה, ויבא בעל השור ויעמוד על שורו אמר רחמנא. ועוד היה ראוי שעדות זו
תתקבל בפני גדולי ישראל הבקיאים בדרישה וחקירה, שידרשו ויחקרו היטב, שלא
לאסור אשה לבעלה...
משמע דבכה"ג שלא היה בפניה לא היה דן עליו כלל, דלא הוה עדות. וכן פסק
הטור חו"מ סימן כח, דעדות שלא בפניו אין דנין על פיו. וכן פסק הרא"ש בתשובה
כלל מא סימן ו, דהוה כאילו לא נתקבל כלל...
וכן מה שכתב מהר"ר איסרל בפסקיו דבמקום אלם דדחלי מיניה גובין לכתחילה
עדות שלא בפניו, היינו דוקא בענין ממון, כמו שכתב שם בעצמו מטעם הפקר בית
דין הפקר, והכי דיינין לאלמי ולכל חבריו, אבל לאפקועי אשה מבעלה בעדות שלא
בפניו, פשיטא דלא מהני כלל, כדמשמע מתשובת הרא"ש דלעיל, מאחר דבעי דרישה
וחקירה כדיני נפשות, כמו שכתב הרא"ש בתשובתו. גם לענין קבלת עדות שלא בפניו
הוה דינו כדיני נפשות, ושם פשיטא דלא מהני עדות שלא בפניו, דכתיב "והועד
בבעליו" (שמות כא, כט), יבוא בעל השור ויעמוד על שורו (ב"ק קיב ע"ב).
and all halachick auothroties I spoke to disagree with him
ReplyDeleteNames please.
1) Since this post was put up, when did you have any chance to speak to anybody that they should tell you that they disagree? And
ReplyDelete2) what sources does he need to cite for the above statements that are pretty much conventional? He's not saying any chiddush. Nathan, I promise you that the silence of so many billions of people who inhabit this earth and will refuse to protest this p'sak, will be 'DEAFENING'!..............
What exactly do you disagree with? If a woman has chezkas Aishess ish and somebody comes along and say she can remarry, do we believe him? Or do we need two witnesses? In the event that a single witness says that a husband died, we believe him only because if the husband is alive he may return and make the witness look very bad, as Rambam says. But if somebody simply comes along and invents some half-backed excuse for a woman to remarry like the Epstein situation, do we just stamp the marriage "finished" like that? And since even two witnesses can make a mistake, surely in all matters of permitting a woman to remarry without a Beth Din certified GET can result in serious errors, it makes sense to do nothing without a Beth Din. Furthermore, the rebbe of the Beis Yosef, Mahari ben Leib, writes that in his time when a majority of rabbis wanted to permit a woman to remarry but a minority of rabbis forbade it, that we don't follow the majority, so fearful are we of allowing people to marry in a way that could be sinful. This is based on Tosfose.
ReplyDeleteI saw this note 3/weeks ago, when reb Moshe was matir no maseh bet din was written up, the women remarried based on reb moshes psam alone
ReplyDeleteRabbis landesman, herbs , and bluth
ReplyDeleteSo, buddy, what did Rav Landesman and Rav Bluth pasken about this "heter?" Did they completely reject it?
ReplyDeleteHopefully, the names you quote never said anything of the sort, or they did the no longer unthinkable - give out Psukim without checking the facts.
ReplyDeleteSecular law requires that the forensic evaluations allow the defendant or counsel the right of cross examining the witnesses. So does halacho.
You say מעשה בית דין?
Fine!
מעשה בית דין has no validity without the parties present:
ב"ב קס"ז: אין כותבין שטרי בירורין וכל מעשה ב''ד אלא מדעת שניהם
And in Shulchan Aruch חו"מ ס' י"ג: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם,
וּשְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹתְנִים שְׂכַר הַסוֹפֵר.
מעשה בית דין obviously requires בית דין, as in ב"ב מ:.
Bais Din isn't allowed to pasken a דין מרומה - a case with "red flags" that cast doubt on the veracity of the claims being made. It's in חו"מ ס' סט"ו ס"ב:
ג הַדַּיָּן שֶׁבָּא לְפָנָיו דִּין שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מְרֻמֶּה, לֹא יֹאמַר: אֶחְתְּכֶנּוּ
וְיִהְיֶה הַקּוֹלָר (פי' שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת הֶעָוֹן) תָּלוּי בְּצַוַּאר הָעֵדִים. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה, יִדְרֹשׁ בּוֹ וְיַחֲקֹר הַרְבֵּה בִּדְרִישָׁה וַחֲקִירָה שֶׁל דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. הגה:
וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵין דִּינוֹ כְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, שֶׁאִם אָמַר בְּאֶחָד מִן הַחֲקִירוֹת: אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ, שֶׁיִּתְבַּטֵּל הָעֵדוּת, אֶלָּא רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁיַּחֲקֹר בְּדִין מְרֻמֶּה כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֶפְשָׁר (רִיבָ''שׁ סִימָן רס''ו) . אִם נִרְאֶה לוֹ לְפִי דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רַמָּאוּת, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ סוֹמֶכֶת עַל דִּבְרֵי הָעֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן, אוֹ שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ נוֹטָה שֶׁבַּעַל דִּין זֶה רַמַּאי וּבַעַל עָרְמָה וְהִשִּׁיא אֶת הָעֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם כְּשֵׁרִים וּלְפִי תֻמָּם הֵעִידוּ, וְזֶה הַטַּעַם, אוֹ שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לוֹ מִכְּלַל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים
מְסֻתָּרִים וְאֵינָם רוֹצִים לְגַלּוֹתָם, כָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם אָסוּר לוֹ לַחְתֹּךְ אוֹתוֹ הַדִּין, אֶלָּא יְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מִדִּין זֶה וִידוּנֶנּוּ מִי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ שָׁלֵם בַּדָּבָר, וַהֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים מְסוּרִים לַלֵּב. וּכְשֶׁהָיָה רוֹאֶה הָרֹא''שׁ בְּאֻמְדְּנָא דְמוּכָח שֶׁהַדִּין מְרֻמֶּה, הָיָה (ב) כּוֹתֵב וְנוֹתֵן בְּיַד הַנִּתְבָּע שֶׁאֵין לְשׁוּם דַּיָּן לְהִשְׁתַּדֵּל בְּדִין זֶה.
This is probably why RSK went Rabbonim shopping. Problem is that the defendant can't have his right of due process taken away from him, by ANY bais din. As the שו"ת הרמ"א that I quoted earlier says, even if in monetary matters there are cases where a din שלא בפני בעל דין might work, never in matters of אשת איש.
לאפקועי אשה מבעלה בעדות שלא בפניו, פשיטא דלא מהני כלל, כדמשמע מתשובת הרא"ש דלעיל, מאחר דבעי דרישה וחקירה כדיני נפשות,
That's why the מעשה בית דין thing is a non-starter.
The said reality is that what's going on here is a sad case of incompetence due to "bounded rationality", defined by google as:
ReplyDelete"the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision"
Limited info - about mental health.
cognitive limitations - about how to integrate the tremendous amount of data available on the subject.
finite time - too many other things to take care of.
What SHOULD be the best course of action?
DON'T GET INVOLVED IN THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT!
This is the idea of דרישה וחקירה and the obligation not to offer a decision until ברור לו כשמש, as noted in חו"מ ס"י ס"א:
צָרִיךְ הַדַּיָּן לִהְיוֹת מָתוּן בַּדִּין, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְסְקֶנּוּ עַד שֶׁיַּחֲמִיצֶנּוּ וְיִשָּׂא וְיִתֵּן בּוֹ וְיִהְיֶה בָּרוּר לוֹ כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ. וְהַגַּס לִבּוֹ בְּהוֹרָאָה וְקוֹפֵץ וּפוֹסֵק הַדִּין קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחְקְרֶנּוּ הֵיטֵב בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּרוּר לוֹ כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ, הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹטֶה, רָשָׁע וְגַס רוּחַ.
This is a moment that has the potential to wreak havoc and misery for generations to come. Unless we act to stop it. - Yosef Kanefsky, Los Angeles
ReplyDeleteUnlike the false case about which he wrote this statement, Mr. Kanefsky's words apply in this case because the mamzerus that will result from bigamists such as Tamar Epstein will wreak havoc on even her own children. So it is indeed necessary to stop it now.
Asher, Would you be interested in making face-to-face meetings with Rabbonim to respectfully present the facts they may be missing? maybe that way we can separate the ignorant from the evil?
ReplyDeleteNathan, rather interesting that you're asking for if there's one thing that defines this heter the lack of sources, or discussion or transparency why would you want sources for those of oppose it? Let's just be fair and call a spade a spade this was done ad hoc without any responsibility
ReplyDeleteOn which cases and which rabbonim? Yes, I would meet face-to-face and present facts and truth. But they need to do their part when they see the facts I present are true. The case I have tried to get rabbonim to uphold the excommunication of a Young Israel rabbi for a severe aveirah d'oraisah goes nowhere because no one seems to care that Pesach Lerner committed FORGERY and Peretz Steinberg committed PERJURY! http://cleanupyoungisrael.blogspot.com/2015/02/young-israel-is-only-orthodox-style-but.html
ReplyDeleteNathanof gaza says: “I saw this note 3 weeks ago, when
ReplyDeletereb Moshe was matir no maseh bet din was written up, the women remarried based
on reb moshes psam alone.”
My point is that with the man alive and well and free,
no court, rabbinic or civil, could rule his wife could remarry without a get or
to take his property and rights away or that his children are illegitimate---without
allowing the man his full say in court. This is my argument with Susan in NYS court of
Appeals motion 2015-1219. Hopefully, nest week the court will rule!
BTW, someone approached me in shul tonight in Bnei
Brak and said his was reading my comments here. I asked if he agreed. He waved
his finger at me indicating no. I do
feel safe here in Bnei Brak.
I never took you to be a Bnei Brak type guy, Gerald!
ReplyDeleteI am not excited by some of these names. I am certain that I heard/saw that Landesman rejected it.
ReplyDeleteoy!
ReplyDeleteof course he did
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/11/tamar-epstein-rav-leib-landesmans-psak.html
Not much yo add to these posts, but Just to respond, albeit worthwhile to point out nonetheless:
ReplyDelete1)Rav Moshe was Rav Moshe, the last gadol to be so universally accepted- or better yet, recognized.
2)........and nonetheless unequivocally transparent.......not expecting any preferential treatment - still knowing full well who he was.
Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteI think you and Gerald should get together. You can tell him all about Yitz Wyne and Steinberg, and he will respond with stories about Susan.
ReplyDeleteMatch made in heaven.
Please. He used the very bogus "Botei Din" we are seeking to rid ourselves from.
ReplyDeleteHe did reject it, but Nathan is not saying otherwise. What I think he's saying is that R' Landesman disagrees with R' Rosenberg's statement that a sole dayan cannot theoretically be matir a woman. Is that correct, Nathan?
ReplyDeleteWhere is a sole dayan relied upon? On a shayla in Hilchos Shabbos or basar b'chalav? That's it. Things that involve 2 parties? Not really....that's Aleph Bais
ReplyDeleteMy rejoinder was only meant to mean - oh, oh! I'd need another few hours to figure out what's really going on in that case ... and I'm behind in my work even without this!
ReplyDeleteAnd he started this חורבן
ReplyDeleteThe teshuva he brought is not discussing a heter of mekach ta'us. Over there the fight is about the husband being allowed to divorce her and withhold the kesubah. In other words, it's a דין ממון. Where money is at issue, of course both sides have to be heard by BD. This proves nothing about a case of bitul kiddushin.
ReplyDelete[It's a very long teshuvah, and I really don't have time for the whole thing, but this is clear from the first page or so.]
R' Moshe started a churban? Are you insane?
ReplyDeleteA mekach taos claim on a commercial transaction requires a beis din to hear a case with both sides of the commercial transaction, so why would a mekach taos claim on a marriage transaction not require a beis din hear a case with both sides of the marriage transaction?
ReplyDeleteYep, u read me correctly, and so said many gedolei Yisroel In his day
ReplyDeleteIt's not a monetary transaction. R' Moshe paskened it on his own. You claim it needs BD. Show proof.
ReplyDelete